The bill in its final form tries to avoid the Poll Tax Amendment by
offering the alternative of presenting a free state ID card (which
is not presently free so that would generate what is called a
"fiscal note" of its budgetary impact). However, present practice is to
demand the applicant for such a state ID provide a valid social
security number, in partial compliance with the Real ID Act, and my
position is that since no one is required to have an SSN (or even an
official name), and it is not proof of citizenship, then it is
unconstitutional because it imposes an additional qualification to vote
that has a discriminatory impact and does not pass a rational basis
test.
(Now if they wanted to require prospective voters to pass a test on the
Constitution, that would suit me fine. If I got to write the test I
would be the only one qualified to vote.)
It may seem odd to moderns that a nameless individual could be
qualified to vote, but it was not unheard of in the Early Republic for
people qualified to vote not to have an official name. Most people did
adopt an informal one, of course, or people just gave him one, as a
local custom, but it would not be unheard of for a notary public to
certify the mark of someone "known to" the notary as a citizen without
a name attached.
There will undoubtedly be a lawsuit. But I doubt it will make the above
points, and will not prevail. Some lawyers will make money off legally
ignorant Democrats, and probably joke about that among themselves when
they think no one is watching.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------